Neil Spicer

Objectives This study aimed to quantify change in the coverage, quality and equity of essential maternal and newborn healthcare interventions in Gombe state, Northeast Nigeria, following a four year, government-led, maternal and newborn health intervention. Design Quasi-experimental plausibility study. Repeat cross-sectional household and linked health facility surveys were implemented in intervention and comparison areas. Setting Gombe state, Northeast Nigeria. Participants Each household survey included a sample of 1000 women aged 13–49 years with a live birth in the previous 12 months. Health facility surveys comprised a readiness assessment and birth attendant interview. Interventions Between 2016–2019 a complex package of evidence-based interventions was implemented to increase access, use and quality of maternal and newborn healthcare, spanning the six WHO health system building blocks. Outcome measures Eighteen indicators of maternal and newborn healthcare. Results Between 2016 and 2019, the coverage of all indicators improved in intervention areas, with the exception of postnatal and postpartum contacts, which remained below 15%. Greater improvements were observed in intervention than comparison areas for eight indicators, including coverage of at least one antenatal visit (71% (95% CI 62 to 68) to 88% (95% CI 82 to 93)), at least four antenatal visits (46% (95% CI 39 to 53) to 69% (95% CI 60 to 75)), facility birth (48% (95% CI 37 to 59) to 64% (95% CI 54 to 73)), administration of uterotonics (44% (95% CI 34 to 54) to 59% (95% CI 50 to 67)), delayed newborn bathing (44% (95% CI 36 to 52) to 62% (95% CI 52 to 71)) and clean cord care (42% (95% CI 34 to 49) to 73% (95% CI 66 to 79)). Wide-spread inequities persisted however; only at least one antenatal visit saw pro-poor improvement. Conclusions This intervention achieved improvements in life-saving behaviours for mothers and newborns, demonstrating that multipartner action, coordinated through government leadership, can shift the needle in the right direction, even in resource-constrained settings.

Health interventions introduced as part of donor-funded projects need careful planning if they are to survive when donor funding ends. In northeast Nigeria, the Gombe State Primary Health Care Development Agency and implementing partners recognized this when introducing a Village Health Worker (VHW) Scheme in 2016. VHWs are a new cadre of community health worker, providing maternal, newborn and child health-related messages, basic healthcare and making referrals to health facilities. This paper presents a qualitative study focussing on the VHW Scheme’s sustainability and, hence, contributes to the body of literature on sustaining donor-funded interventions as well as presenting lessons aimed at decision-makers seeking to introduce similar schemes in other Nigerian states and in other low- and middle-income settings. In 2017 and 2018, we conducted 37 semi-structured interviews and 23 focus group discussions with intervention stakeholders and community members. Based on respondents’ accounts, six key actions emerged as essential in promoting the VHW Scheme’s sustainability: government ownership and transition of responsibilities, adapting the scheme for sustainability, motivating VHWs, institutionalizing the scheme within the health system, managing financial uncertainties and fostering community ownership and acceptance. Our study suggests that for a community health worker intervention to be sustainable, reflection and adaption, government and community ownership and a phased transition of responsibilities are crucial.

Background: Despite many efforts to achieve better coordination, fragmentation is an enduring feature of the global health landscape that undermines the effectiveness of health programmes and threatens the attainment of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals. In this paper we identify and describe the multiple causes of fragmentation in development assistant for health at the global level. The study is of particular relevance since the emergence of new global health problems such as COVID-19 heightens the need for global health actors to work in coordinated ways. Our study is part of theLancet Commission on Synergies between Universal Health Coverage, Health Security and Health Promotion.Methods: We used a mixed methods approach. This consisted of a non-systematic literature review of published papers in scientific journals, reports, books and websites. We also carried out twenty semi-structured expert interviews with individuals from bilateral and multilateral organisations, governments and academic and research institutions between April 2019 and December 2019.Results: We identified five distinct yet interconnected sets of factors causing fragmentation: proliferation of global health actors; problems of global leadership; divergent interests; problems of accountability; problems of power relations. We explain why global health actors struggle to harmonise their approaches and priorities, fail to align their work with low- and middle-income countries’ needs and why they continue to embrace funding instruments that create fragmentation.Conclusions: Many global actors are genuinely committed to addressing the problems of fragmentation, despite their complexity and interconnected nature. This paper aims to raise awareness and understanding of the causes of fragmentation and to help guide actors’ efforts in addressing the problems and moving to more synergistic approaches.

Donors often fund projects that develop innovative practices in low and middle-income countries, hoping recipient governments will adopt and scale them within existing systems and programmes. Such innovations frequently end when project funding ends, limiting longer term potential in countries with weak health systems and pressing health needs. This paper aims to identify critical actions for externally funded project implementers to enable scale-up of maternal and newborn child health innovations originally funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (‘the foundation’), or influenced by innovations that were originally funded by the foundation in three low-income settings: Ethiopia, the state of Uttar Pradesh in India and northeast Nigeria. We define scale-up as the adoption of donor-funded innovations beyond their original project settings and time periods. We conducted 71 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with representatives from government, donors and other development partner agencies, donor-funded implementers including frontline providers, research organisations and professional associations. We explored three case study maternal and newborn innovations. Selection criteria were: a) innovations originally funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (‘the foundation’), or influenced by innovations that were originally funded by the foundation; b) innovations for which a decision to scale-up had been made, allowing us to reflect on the factors influencing those decisions; c) innovations with increased geographical reach, benefitting a greater number of people, beyond districts where foundation-funded implementers were active. Our data were analysed based on a common analytic framework to aid cross-country comparisons. Based on study respondents’ accounts, we identified six critical steps that donor-funded implementers had taken to enable the adoption of maternal and newborn health innovations at scale: designing innovations for scale; generating evidence to influence and inform scale-up; harnessing the support of powerful individuals; being prepared for scale-up and responsive to change; ensuring continuity by being part of the transition to scale; and embracing the aid effectiveness principles of country ownership, alignment and harmonisation. Six critical actions identified in this study were associated with adopting and scaling maternal and newborn health innovations. However, scale-up is unpredictable and depends on factors outside implementers’ control.

Background: Understanding the context of a health programme is important in interpreting evaluation findings and in considering the external validity for other settings. Public health researchers can be imprecise and inconsistent in their usage of the word “context” and its application to their work. This paper presents an approach to defining context, to capturing relevant contextual information and to using such information to help interpret findings from the perspective of a research group evaluating the effect of diverse innovations on coverage of evidence-based, life-saving interventions for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and India. Methods: We define “context” as the background environment or setting of any program, and “contextual factors” as those elements of context that could affect implementation of a programme. Through a structured, consultative process, contextual factors were identified while trying to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility. Thematic areas included demographics and socio-economics, epidemiological profile, health systems and service uptake, infrastructure, education, environment, politics, policy and governance. We outline an approach for capturing and using contextual factors while maximizing use of existing data. Methods include desk reviews, secondary data extraction and key informant interviews. Outputs include databases of contextual factors and summaries of existing maternal and newborn health policies and their implementation. Use of contextual data will be qualitative in nature and may assist in interpreting findings in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of programme evaluation. Discussion: Applying this approach was more resource intensive than expected, in part because routinely available information was not consistently available across settings and more primary data collection was required than anticipated. Data was used only minimally, partly due to a lack of evaluation results that needed further explanation, but also because contextual data was not available for the precise units of analysis or time periods of interest. We would advise others to consider integrating contextual factors within other data collection activities, and to conduct regular reviews of maternal and newborn health policies. This approach and the learnings from its application could help inform the development of guidelines for the collection and use of contextual factors in public health evaluation.

Donors commonly fund innovative interventions to improve health in the hope that governments of low and middle-income countries will scale-up those that are shown to be effective. Yet innovations can be slow to be adopted by country governments and implemented at scale. Our study explores this problem by identifying key contextual factors influencing scale-up of maternal and newborn health innovations in three low-income settings: Ethiopia, the six states of northeast Nigeria and Uttar Pradesh state in India. We conducted 150 semi-structured interviews in 2012/13 with stakeholders from government, development partner agencies, externally funded implementers including civil society organisations, academic institutions and professional associations to understand scale-up of innovations to improve the health of mothers and newborns these study settings. We analysed interview data with the aid of a common analytic framework to enable cross-country comparison, with Nvivo to code themes. We found that multiple contextual factors enabled and undermined attempts to catalyse scale-up of donor-funded maternal and newborn health innovations. Factors influencing government decisions to accept innovations at scale included: how health policy decisions are made; prioritising and funding maternal and newborn health; and development partner harmonisation. Factors influencing the implementation of innovations at scale included: health systems capacity in the three settings; and security in northeast Nigeria. Contextual factors influencing beneficiary communities’ uptake of innovations at scale included: sociocultural contexts; and access to healthcare. We conclude that context is critical: externally funded implementers need to assess and adapt for contexts if they are to successfully position an innovation for scale-up.